SOUND OWNER'S TOURS (REGD.) vs Gurdeep Singh

BRIEF facts giving rise to this appeal are that Gurdeep Singh, hereinafter referred to as the complainant, organized a pilgrimage tour for a group of persons, who were complainants No. 2 to 49 in the original complaint. He, on behalf of the complainants, entered into an agreement with the opposite parties for providing a tourist bus from 10.6.92 to 16.6.92 on payment of Rs. 9,000/-. A sum of Rs. 1,000/-was paid in advance on 4.6.92. The time fixed for the bus to report was 8 p.m. on 10.6.92 for departure for the pilgrimage. In fact, the bus reported at 11 p.m. The complainants were made to pay Rs.2,950/-before commencement of the journey. The complainants were further made to pay Rs. 2,000/-to the driver at the border, another Rs. 1,000/-was taken by the driver at Rampur for buying diesel. On the following morning i.e. 11.6.92 at about 8 a.m. the bus hit a tree. Several persons travelling in the bus were injured. The complainant informed opposite party 2 about the accident on telephone as the bus was not in a position to move and continue the remaining journey. Opposite party 2 agreed to send another bus so as to reach there by about 6 p.m. No bus, however, reached the place of accident to resume the journey. The passengers had to wait there the whole night. The opposite party was contacted again on 12.6.92 when opposite party 2 stated that a substitute bus could not be arranged and the complainant could do whatever they liked. The complainant, therefore, arranged, another bus though not without considerable difficulty through M/s. Chawla Tourist Corporation (Regd.) on payment of Rs. 12,000/-besides Rs. 100/-per day for payment of the driver and contractor. The complainants had also to spend Rs. 25/-per head to go to the place from where they were to be picked up by newly arranged tourist bus. The complainants claimed compensation @ Rs. 4,000/-per person in addition to the amount spent in completing their trip.

THE complaint was contested. On a consideration of the matter, the District Forum found the material averments made by the complainants proved. It was Held that the opposite parties were guilty of deficiency in service. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the opposite parties were directed to pay Rs. 1,000/-each to the complainants. Hence this appeal by the opposite parties. We have carefully gone through the records and have heard Mr. Gurdeep Singh, complainant No. 1, respondent in the appeal.

In the grounds of appeal it has been stated that in fact, the bus DEP 4893 provided by the appellant had not hit the tree but an accident took place with another bus resulting in minor damage. However, on receiving information, the appellant sent another tourist bus bearing registration No. DBF 1579. By the time the substitute bus reached the place of occurrence, the complainants had left the place in small groups of 4-5 each by other buses. It was further stated that while going away the complainants had taken away the stepney of the bus. The appellant also objected to the award of Rs. 1,000/-per head as compensation. Another objection raised is that the appellants were only intermediary and in fact the bus which had been supplied to the complainants had been provided by M/s. Supreme Travels, who were necessary party to the complaint and the complaint was not maintainable on account of non-joinder of the said necessary party. On a consideration of the material on record we find no merit in the above contentions. The plea of non-joinder of Supreme Travels was rightly rejected by the learned District Forum. Even if it is assumed that the bus DEP 4893 belonged to M/s. Supreme Travels, the service of providing a tourist bus to visit various places of pilgrim interest to the complainants was entered into with the appellants and it were the appellants who were liable to provide the said service to the complainants. The version of the opposite parties does not deserve acceptance and it was rightly rejected by the District Forum that a substitute bus had been sent by the opposite parties and when the bus reached the spot, the complainants had already left. Actually the complaint was supported by affidavit of complainant No. 1 Gurdeep Singh and seven other passengers. A number of persons were injured and a perusal of the names of the passengers reveals that quite a large number of them were ladies. No second driver was provided. The bus commenced its journey at about 11 p.m. on 10.6.92 and one of the factors which appears to have contributed to the occurrence of the accident was that the driver became tired as he had been driving in the whole of the night between 10 and 11th June, 92. The allegation that the complainants took away stepney of the bus appears to be absurd on the face of it. It is well-known that stepney of a bus is a very heavy item and it would be difficult to handle and carry away the same by even 2-3 persons. Moreover, carrying of a step-nee would become a liability to the passengers who had to make alternative arrangements to resume the journey after waiting for the whole day of 11.6.92 and the whole night between 11th and 12th June, 92. The compensation awarded errs on the lighter side. In any case, no appeal having been preferred by the complainants, the amount cannot be increased. For these reasons, we find no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly, dismissed. A copy of this order be communicated to the parties as well as D.F.-II. Appeal dismissed. ___________